const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred #142008
+938
−952
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
RalfJung
commented
Jun 4, 2025
RalfJung
commented
Jun 4, 2025
RalfJung
commented
Jun 4, 2025
RalfJung
commented
Jun 4, 2025
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Once #142015 lands, do we even still want this? The first label always points inside the "root constant" (I forgot about that), so we don't have to repeat the name of that constant. It's kind of unnecessary that we spell out whether it's a static or const but 🤷 |
|
I think we still want this PR just as a simplification without any downsides |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #142081) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-eval-error-here
branch
from
6a9919e to
c78beb8
Compare
|
Okay, now this looks as expected. :) I also replaced "failed here" by "failed inside this call" when the label is pointing at the top of an (inverted) stack trace rather than the fine-grained failure location. @rustbot ready |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-eval-error-here
branch
from
c78beb8 to
03c440b
Compare
|
The Miri subtree was changed cc @rust-lang/miri |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
also adjust the wording a little so that we don't say "the error occurred here" for two different spans
RalfJung
force-pushed
the
const-eval-error-here
branch
from
03c440b to
17946c2
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
workingjubilee
added a commit
to workingjubilee/rustc
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 7, 2025
…oli-obk const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const. r? `@oli-obk`
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 7, 2025
Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - #138062 (Enable Non-determinism of float operations in Miri and change std tests ) - #140560 (Allow `#![doc(test(attr(..)))]` everywhere) - #141001 (Make NonZero<char> possible) - #141295 (Stabilize `if let` guards (`feature(if_let_guard)`)) - #141435 (Add (back) `unsupported_calling_conventions` lint to reject more invalid calling conventions) - #141447 (Document representation of `Option<unsafe fn()>`) - #142008 (const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred) - #142053 (Add new Tier-3 targets: `loongarch32-unknown-none*`) - #142065 (Stabilize `const_eq_ignore_ascii_case`) - #142116 (Fix bootstrap tracing imports) - #142126 (Treat normalizing consts like normalizing types in deeply normalize) - #142140 (compiler: Sort and doc ExternAbi variants) - #142148 (compiler: Treat ForceWarning as a Warning for diagnostic level) - #142154 (get rid of spurious cfg(bootstrap)) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2025
…oli-obk const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const. r? ``@oli-obk``
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2025
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #141001 (Make NonZero<char> possible) - #141700 (Atomic intrinsics : use const generic ordering, part 2) - #141993 (Use the in-tree `compiler-builtins` for the sysroot) - #142008 (const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred) - #142053 (Add new Tier-3 targets: `loongarch32-unknown-none*`) - #142132 (`tests/ui`: A New Order [6/N]) - #142179 (store `target.min_global_align` as an `Align`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2025
…oli-obk const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const. r? ```@oli-obk```
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2025
Rollup of 6 pull requests Successful merges: - #141001 (Make NonZero<char> possible) - #141700 (Atomic intrinsics : use const generic ordering, part 2) - #142008 (const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred) - #142053 (Add new Tier-3 targets: `loongarch32-unknown-none*`) - #142132 (`tests/ui`: A New Order [6/N]) - #142179 (store `target.min_global_align` as an `Align`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
workingjubilee
added a commit
to workingjubilee/rustc
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2025
…oli-obk const-eval error: always say in which item the error occurred I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a `const fn` that was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const. r? ````@oli-obk````
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I don't see why "is this generic" should make a difference. It may be reasonable to key this on whether the error occurs in a
const fnthat was invoked by a const (making it non-obvious which constant it is) vs inside the body of the const.r? @oli-obk